Case: T.D. v. Wrigley

This case is about a challenge to a state law banning gender-affirming care to transgender minors. 

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 12.1-36.1 (the “Health Care Ban”) made it a crime for healthcare professionals to provide gender-affirming care to minors. The law went into effect on April 21, 2023. 

On September 15, 2023, several transgender individuals, their families, and an endocrinologist who provides gender-affirming care to transgender minors filed this lawsuit against North Dakota's Attorney General in the Burleigh County District Court in North Dakota challenging a state law that makes it a crime for health care professionals to provide gender-affirming care to minors. Plaintiffs were represented by Gender Justice as the Lawyering Project. Plaintiffs filed suit under the state’s constitution, alleging that it violates North Dakotans’ rights to equal protection, fundamental right to parent, personal autonomy and that the law is unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiffs were represented by the organization Gender Justice and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Judge Jackson Lofgren. 

Also on September 15, 2023 plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to block the law. Judge Jackson denied plaintiffs motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on November 11, 2023. On June 5, 2024 Judge Jackson denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, after finding that the State Constitution's protection of parental rights has never been interpreted to include an absolute right for a parent to obtain any desired medical treatment the parent may wish for their child, that gender affirming care is not deeply rooted in our history and traditions and this beyond the democratic process to regulate and that transgender individuals do not constitute a protected class under North Dakota's equal protection laws

On January 14, 2025 Judge Jackson granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss in part, finding that the transgender individuals and their families lack standing for the suit given that they fall within the law’s exception for individuals already receiving gender-affirming care. Judge Jackson also dismissed plaintiff’s constitutional arguments for vagueness. The case was permitted to proceed to trial with the endocrinologist  as the sole plaintiff regarding whether the law violated North Dakotians' equal protection, personal autonomy and self-determination rights.

A bench trial began on January 27th, 2025 and concluded on February 4th of the same year. There has not been a published opinion regarding the outcome.